Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/529

 504

THE GREEN BAG

an exercise of the delegated power is, in effect, a civil suit, subject to all its incidents, and conse quently removable if the proceeding is by a citizen of one state against a citizen of another. Mr. Justice Holmes, in a dissenting opinion, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Brewer and Peckham concur, takes the view that as eminent domain is a prerogative of the state, which may be exercised in any way that the state sees fit, either by act of the legislature, or by the machin ery of the courts, the United States has no right to intervene and substitute other machinery be cause the state has chosen to use its law courts rather than a legislative committee and thus to give to the exercise of its sovereign power the external form of a suit at law. GAMING. (CONVEYANCES FOR GAMBLING CON SIDERATION) ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT. A firm engaged in gambling transactions in the state of Missouri had an office in charge of an agent in the District of Columbia. The firm transacted business to some extent in Illinois. Customers depositing money with the Missouri firm were guaranteed a certain weekly income thereon. A citizen of Illinois for the purpose of making such a deposit, endorsed to the agent in the District of Columbia a certificate of deposit, issued by an Illinois Bank and later on failure of the firm stopped payment. On these facts it is held, in Thomas v. First National Bank of Belle ville, 72 Northeastern 80 1, that the transfer of the certificate was void as a gambling transaction within Kurd's Rev. St. of Illinois, 1903, c. 38, § 131, declaring that all conveyances made, where any part of the consideration shall be for money won by gambling, shall be void; but a more novel and interesting portion of the decision is that necessitated by the contention of the transferee that as the assignment was made in the District of Columbia, and as the principal office of the firm was located in Missouri and no law of either Missouri or the District of Columbia was offered in evidence condemning the transactions in those jurisdictions, the transfer should have been sus tained. It is held, however, that as the firm carried on its gambling business to some extent in Illinois, and this suit is brought there, the enforcement of the laws of that state necessitated a holding that the contract was invalid. GAMING. (GAMBLING DEVICE — POKER TABLE — CHIPS — CARDS) SUPREME COURT OP MISSOURI. A poker table, cards, and chips, "adapted" for playing the great American game, do not consti

tute a gambling table or gambling device within the meaning of Mo. Rev. St. 1899, § 2194, making it a felony for any one to set up, or keep any kind of gambling table or gambling device "adapted, devised or designed" for the purpose of playing any game of chance for money or property, etc. (State v. Etchman, 83 South western Reporter, 978.) The court relies upon the earlier case of State v. Gilmore, n S. W. 620. The court, conceding for the moment that the earlier case is not applicable, holds that the in dictment, which read "adapted" to the purpose of playing a game of chance, does not follow the terms of the statute, in which the words "adapted, devised and designed" are used. The court points out that, in order to be a violation of the law, the paraphernalia must have been "devised and designed" to be used as a gaining table in addition to being "adapted" to that purpose. GAMING.

(GAMBLING DEVICE — CRAP TABLE) SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. The same court in a decision handed down a few months later holds that a crap table is within the strftutc discussed in the preceding note. State v. Locket, 87 Southwestern Reporter, 470. In this case, the court overruled the contention of counsel that the game of crap could be played without the intervention of a table, and as it was not one of the games enumerated in that section, the prosecution could not lie. The case, as the court says, is decided upon broad lines, and the case of State v. Rosenblatt, 83 S. W. 975, is cited to the effect that the statute was broad enough to, and does include the setting up or keeping of any kind of gaining table or gaming device for the purpose of playing any game of chance for money or property. Texas and Arkan sas cases are also cited. While this holding is manifestly proper, it is a notable coincidence that the gentleman's game of poker is permitted by a slavish adherence to precedent and a technical construction of the statute, while the black man's game of crap is prohibited by a construction upon "broad lines." HOMICIDE. (CORPUS DELICTI — CIRCUMSTAN TIAL EVIDENCE) OREGON SUPREME COURT. The case of State v. Williams, 80 Pacific Re porter, 655, is a notable departure from the gener ally accepted common law rule as to the evidence necessary to establish the corpus delicti in a prosecution for homicide. From the earliest days of the common law, to the present time, it has been held that there cotild be no conviction for murder or manslaughter without direct proof of the